S
SemperFidelis
Guest
With all that said, I think that it is important to mention that those who “stayed within the Church” and kept to the Traditional Sacraments were only able to do so due to the acts of a certain Archbishop.
- Status
S
SemperFidelis
Guest
The Vatican, over the last several years, has consistently reiterated that the SSPX is not in formal schism.
A
Ad_Gentes
Guest
“Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic Church. It is not lawful to baptize or give communion without the consent of the bishop. On the other hand, whatever has his approval is pleasing to God. Thus, whatever is done will be safe and valid.” (St Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8)
“Clerics are bound by a special obligation to show reverence and obedience to the Supreme Pontiff and their own ordinary.” (CIC Can. 273)
“Priests, never losing sight of the fullness of the priesthood which the bishops enjoy, must respect in them the authority of Christ, the Supreme Shepherd. They must therefore stand by their bishops in sincere charity and obedience.” (Presbyterorum Ordinis 7)
These are just a few references. Of course, none of them make use of terms such as “uncertainty”, “error” or “destruction”. But why should they? It is understood that the official position of the Church, confirmed the Holy Father and the College of Bishops, is valid and free of error.
We should never try to justify schism. This is the same argument used by the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches, referring to what they call “innovations” and “errors” of the West. Traditional Catholics regard Orthodox as schismatic because they are not in communion with Rome. What does that say about the SSPX?
Those who reject Vatican II with the argument that it “changed” or “contradicted” Catholic doctrine have no real argument. The Council itself declared that it was pastoral in nature and that it did not intend to change doctrine. And as for those perceived “changes”, it would not be the first time that the Church clarifies or expands its doctrines, even as some perceive it as a “contradiction” or “change”. A good example is that of the Filioque clause. The original Creed composed at the First Council of Nicaea was later expanded at the First Council of Constantinople. The latter prohibit anyone from changing, altering or adding to this Creed. The Council of Toledo, which was not ecumenical, added the Filioque clause to the Creed. That was done almost 500 years before the Great Schism and to this date, it is still a controversy between the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches.
This is just one of many similar examples. Those who reject the “changes” or “contradictions” of Vatican II, support and defend the *Filioque *clause against the Eastern Orthodox Churches, which they consider schismatic. However, groups such as the SSPX, which are definitely schismatic, i.e. not in full communion with Rome, are defended. That is, IMHO, a contradiction in itself.
A
Ad_Gentes
Guest
I beg to differ. Can you provide supporting evidence?
I
I_Believe
Guest
I
I_Believe
Guest
Cardinal Hoyos has also called the situation “an internal matter”.
also…
A
Ad_Gentes
Guest
The excommunications between the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches were also lifted, yet we are not in full communion.
See: Catholic-Orthodox Joint Declaration of 1965
This was not done “for fun”, but as a first step for reconciliation and full communion.
As for the SSPX goes, Pope Benedict XVI stated the following after lifting the excommunications:
Was the Holy Father mistaken about the SSPX not being in “full communion with the Church”?
It was not a “formal” schism because a separation of the Church was not declared by the SSPX. It was a schism, nonetheless, since, according to the Pope, the SSPX is not in “full communion”.
S
SemperFidelis
Guest
No, but nowhere did he imply that they were in full schism. Some like to call it “cannonical irregularity.”
A
Ad_Gentes
Guest
The Code of Canon Law defines schism as “the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.” (Can. 751) The members of the SSPX have not completely submitted to the authority of the Pope since not all of the required conditions to come into full communion with the Church have been met yet. This includes accepting the validity and authority of the Second Vatican Council.
A
Ad_Gentes
Guest
From the [Profile"]Profile]("http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...ocuments/rc_com_ecclsdei_pro_20051996_en.html) of the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei”:
From the Motu Propio ‘Ecclesia Dei’ of John Paul II:
From the Decree remitting the excommunication “latae sententia” of the Bishops of the Society of St Pius X by the Congregation for Bishops:
E
EnchantedEve
Guest
“I think that last comment unwittingly makes an unjust and uncharitable judgement on the bulk of licitly appointed bishops. It also places incompetent individuals as judges over the bishops, when the only valid judges are the Holy Father and (obviously) Christ Himself.”
To begin, nowhere did I imply that these bishops hold illicite positions of authority. Cardinal Mahoney is my ordinary, in fact I pray for him and have his picture hanging in my kitchen, along with the Holy Father. However, if he preaches errors, which he often does, I am not obliged to obey him. If our bishop told us to blaspheme and spit on the Holy Eucharist, are we obliged to obey? Some may say this is extreme, but than the onus is on them to explain how they would react if such an unlikely thing were to occur.
“Clerics are bound by a special obligation to show reverence and obedience to the Supreme Pontiff and their own ordinary.” (CIC Can. 273)
“Priests, never losing sight of the fullness of the priesthood which the bishops enjoy, must respect in them the authority of Christ, the Supreme Shepherd. They must therefore stand by their bishops in sincere charity and obedience.” (Presbyterorum Ordinis 7)
These are just a few references. Of course, none of them make use of terms such as “uncertainty”, “error” or “destruction”. But why should they? It is understood that the official position of the Church, confirmed the Holy Father and the College of Bishops, is valid and free of error.
We should never try to justify schism. This is the same argument used by the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches, referring to what they call “innovations” and “errors” of the West. Traditional Catholics regard Orthodox as schismatic because they are not in communion with Rome. What does that say about the SSPX?
This is just one of many similar examples. Those who reject the “changes” or “contradictions” of Vatican II, support and defend the *Filioque *clause against the Eastern Orthodox Churches, which they consider schismatic. However, groups such as the SSPX, which are definitely schismatic, i.e. not in full communion with Rome, are defended. That is, IMHO, a contradiction in itself.
So when His Excellency Thomas Gumbleton, formerly of Detroit, says women can validly become priests, this is licit and free of error? When Pope John XXII preached that souls in Purgatory behold the beatific vision, we obey that too? When Timaeus, bishop of Antioch, preached the Arian heresy publicly, were his subjects to obey him? When Cramner was still Catholic Archbishop of Canterbury he had already preached heresy. When does obedience to men end and to Christ begin? When men follow Christ, we obey. When they do not we cannot.
The Eastern Schismatics example is a straw man argument.The Eastern do not submit not only for doctrinal concerns, but also they do not recognize the Supreme Pontiff in that capacity.This is a fundamental difference in understanding of the Papacy, which has existed since the early Church.The SSPX has always recognized the Supreme Pontiff in this capacity, and obey in all areas of fundamental necessity, even defending him in his teaching on women’s ordination. If they did not recognize his authority, they would not recgnize his teachings. No schismatic group recognizes a papal teaching after schism. This is a historical fact. The Anglicans, Old Catholics, Easterns, none have ever recognized a papal act after departing. The SSPX, unlike these others, have no parallel hierarchy (i.e. no SSPX bishop of Los Angeles), and pray for the pope una cum in their masses. The Easterns submit to the Holy Father in NOTHING, which is why they are schismatic.
Based on your arguments, was St. Athanasius as schismatic? St. Joan of Arc a heretic?
To begin, nowhere did I imply that these bishops hold illicite positions of authority. Cardinal Mahoney is my ordinary, in fact I pray for him and have his picture hanging in my kitchen, along with the Holy Father. However, if he preaches errors, which he often does, I am not obliged to obey him. If our bishop told us to blaspheme and spit on the Holy Eucharist, are we obliged to obey? Some may say this is extreme, but than the onus is on them to explain how they would react if such an unlikely thing were to occur.
“Clerics are bound by a special obligation to show reverence and obedience to the Supreme Pontiff and their own ordinary.” (CIC Can. 273)
“Priests, never losing sight of the fullness of the priesthood which the bishops enjoy, must respect in them the authority of Christ, the Supreme Shepherd. They must therefore stand by their bishops in sincere charity and obedience.” (Presbyterorum Ordinis 7)
These are just a few references. Of course, none of them make use of terms such as “uncertainty”, “error” or “destruction”. But why should they? It is understood that the official position of the Church, confirmed the Holy Father and the College of Bishops, is valid and free of error.
We should never try to justify schism. This is the same argument used by the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches, referring to what they call “innovations” and “errors” of the West. Traditional Catholics regard Orthodox as schismatic because they are not in communion with Rome. What does that say about the SSPX?
This is just one of many similar examples. Those who reject the “changes” or “contradictions” of Vatican II, support and defend the *Filioque *clause against the Eastern Orthodox Churches, which they consider schismatic. However, groups such as the SSPX, which are definitely schismatic, i.e. not in full communion with Rome, are defended. That is, IMHO, a contradiction in itself.
So when His Excellency Thomas Gumbleton, formerly of Detroit, says women can validly become priests, this is licit and free of error? When Pope John XXII preached that souls in Purgatory behold the beatific vision, we obey that too? When Timaeus, bishop of Antioch, preached the Arian heresy publicly, were his subjects to obey him? When Cramner was still Catholic Archbishop of Canterbury he had already preached heresy. When does obedience to men end and to Christ begin? When men follow Christ, we obey. When they do not we cannot.
The Eastern Schismatics example is a straw man argument.The Eastern do not submit not only for doctrinal concerns, but also they do not recognize the Supreme Pontiff in that capacity.This is a fundamental difference in understanding of the Papacy, which has existed since the early Church.The SSPX has always recognized the Supreme Pontiff in this capacity, and obey in all areas of fundamental necessity, even defending him in his teaching on women’s ordination. If they did not recognize his authority, they would not recgnize his teachings. No schismatic group recognizes a papal teaching after schism. This is a historical fact. The Anglicans, Old Catholics, Easterns, none have ever recognized a papal act after departing. The SSPX, unlike these others, have no parallel hierarchy (i.e. no SSPX bishop of Los Angeles), and pray for the pope una cum in their masses. The Easterns submit to the Holy Father in NOTHING, which is why they are schismatic.
Based on your arguments, was St. Athanasius as schismatic? St. Joan of Arc a heretic?
E
EnchantedEve
Guest
“I think that last comment unwittingly makes an unjust and uncharitable judgement on the bulk of licitly appointed bishops. It also places incompetent individuals as judges over the bishops, when the only valid judges are the Holy Father and (obviously) Christ Himself.”
To begin, nowhere did I imply that these bishops hold illicite positions of authority. Cardinal Mahoney is my ordinary, in fact I pray for him and have his picture hanging in my kitchen, along with the Holy Father. However, if he preaches errors, which he often does, I am not obliged to obey him. If our bishop told us to blaspheme and spit on the Holy Eucharist, are we obliged to obey? Some may say this is extreme, but than the onus is on them to explain how they would react if such an unlikely thing were to occur.
The Eastern Schismatics example is a straw man argument.The Eastern do not submit not only for doctrinal concerns, but also they do not recognize the Supreme Pontiff in that capacity.This is a fundamental difference in understanding of the Papacy, which has existed since the early Church.The SSPX has always recognized the Supreme Pontiff in this capacity, and obey in all areas of fundamental necessity, even defending him in his teaching on women’s ordination. If they did not recognize his authority, they would not recognize his teachings. No schismatic group recognizes a papal teaching after schism. This is a historical fact. The Anglicans, Old Catholics, Easterns, none have ever recognized a papal act after departing. The SSPX, unlike these others, have no parallel hierarchy (i.e. no SSPX bishop of Los Angeles), and pray for the pope una cum in their masses. The Easterns submit to the Holy Father in NOTHING, which is why they are schismatic.
Based on your arguments, was St. Athanasius as schismatic? St. Joan of Arc a heretic?
On a side note, it may be possible to argue that SSPX arguments may seem to occasionally favor schism, but they cannot be declared truly schismatic, which is why Rome does not say they are.
To begin, nowhere did I imply that these bishops hold illicite positions of authority. Cardinal Mahoney is my ordinary, in fact I pray for him and have his picture hanging in my kitchen, along with the Holy Father. However, if he preaches errors, which he often does, I am not obliged to obey him. If our bishop told us to blaspheme and spit on the Holy Eucharist, are we obliged to obey? Some may say this is extreme, but than the onus is on them to explain how they would react if such an unlikely thing were to occur.
So when His Excellency Thomas Gumbleton, formerly of Detroit, says women can validly become priests, this is licit and free of error? When Pope John XXII preached that souls in Purgatory behold the beatific vision, we obey that too? When Timaeus, bishop of Antioch, preached the Arian heresy publicly, were his subjects to obey him? When Cramner was still Catholic Archbishop of Canterbury he had already preached heresy. When does obedience to men end and to Christ begin? When men follow Christ, we obey. When they do not we cannot.
The Eastern Schismatics example is a straw man argument.The Eastern do not submit not only for doctrinal concerns, but also they do not recognize the Supreme Pontiff in that capacity.This is a fundamental difference in understanding of the Papacy, which has existed since the early Church.The SSPX has always recognized the Supreme Pontiff in this capacity, and obey in all areas of fundamental necessity, even defending him in his teaching on women’s ordination. If they did not recognize his authority, they would not recognize his teachings. No schismatic group recognizes a papal teaching after schism. This is a historical fact. The Anglicans, Old Catholics, Easterns, none have ever recognized a papal act after departing. The SSPX, unlike these others, have no parallel hierarchy (i.e. no SSPX bishop of Los Angeles), and pray for the pope una cum in their masses. The Easterns submit to the Holy Father in NOTHING, which is why they are schismatic.
Based on your arguments, was St. Athanasius as schismatic? St. Joan of Arc a heretic?
On a side note, it may be possible to argue that SSPX arguments may seem to occasionally favor schism, but they cannot be declared truly schismatic, which is why Rome does not say they are.
A
Aramis
Guest
Irrelevant. The priests were not ever excommunicated. They were suspended ad divinis by explicit act of Pope John Paul II. They took solemn vows, breaking of which is a grave sin, to obey the Pope and the bishops.
Suspension ad divinis forbids saying the mass or performing the other sacraments. They thus break their vows of obedience every time the say the mass, and thus commit a grave sin every time they say mass.
Their only licit way for these priests to meet their mass obligation is to sit in choir at a mass offered by a non-suspended priest… which means a non-SSPX priest.
Now, given their belief that the hierarchy is wrong, it’s probably not a mortal sin, but the potential is.
P
ProVobis
Guest
But that’s why he was ordained, to say Mass, isn’t it?
C’mon you and I know the Pope wants no more press regarding the SSPX for awhile. What are the priests and their congregations supposed to do in the meantime?
There is no sin if you go to a Catholic Mass. What you do before and after that is between you and God.
A
Ad_Gentes
Guest
Unless you can provide supporting evidence from a valid Catholic source, that is your opinion and just that.
P
ProVobis
Guest
No evidence needed. It’s just common sense. If you want to make up sins, that is your right.
A
Ad_Gentes
Guest
Actually, no one, especially me, has the “right” to make up sins. If proven wrong, I would gladly and humbly stand corrected for my previous statements. I have, however, provided facts (not opinions) and sufficient evidence to support my position.
The Code of Canon Law states the following:
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states the following:
Again, from the Code of Canon Laws:
I have provided plenty of evidence on Post #30 about the schismatic condition of the SSPX. If they are in fact schismatic, then the possibility of sin is real according to the previous references provided.
A
Ad_Gentes
Guest
Let me make one thing clear; I have nothing personal against the SSPX. I frequently pray for the unity of all Christians and sincerely hope that the SSPX can soon come back into full communion with the Church. Until they do, however, they are in a state of schism. Even if we consider their situation a “canonical irregularity”, the fact remains that they DO NOT have the faculty to celebrate Mass licitly. That means that every time they do, it constitutes grave matter and potentially sinful behavior.
The original poster asked:
The original poster asked:
Regardless of “personal” feelings about the situation of the SSPX, a Catholic faithful cannot validly participate of an SSPX Mass.
If a priest cannot receive Holy Communion due to a penalty, how can he licitly celebrate Mass? If he cannot licitly celebrate Mass, how can a Catholic faithful attend such Mass?
E
EnchantedEve
Guest
For the sake of laughs consider the following in the 1983 CCL:
Can. 844 §1 Catholic ministers may lawfully administer the sacraments only to catholic members of Christ’s faithful, who equally may lawfully receive them only from catholic ministers, except as provided in §§2, 3 and 4 of this canon and in can. 861 §2.
§2 Whenever necessity requires or a genuine spiritual advantage commends it, and provided the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, Christ’s faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a catholic minister, may lawfully receive the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick from non-catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.
§3 Catholic ministers may lawfully administer the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick to members of the eastern Churches not in full communion with the catholic Church, if they spontaneously ask for them and are properly disposed. The same applies to members of other Churches which the Apostolic See judges to be in the same position as the aforesaid eastern Churches so far as the sacraments are concerned.
For the sake of argument, it could be said, that, even if you were convinced that SSPX for reasons that strain credulity was in fact a schismatic sect and not a Catholic group, at minimum it could be argued that your concerns over spiritual and religious matters at the local “approved” parish are so great that you will go to the “non-Catholic” minister in this “period of emergency,” at worst you are going for the lesser evil.
That being said, based on your claims, Rome must be confused as to the SSPX situation. Cardinal Cassidy, in a letter of response dated in 1994 stated: “The Society is not another Church or Ecclesial Community within the meaning used in the Directory (on Ecumenism)” and that its situation is an “internal matter of the Catholic Church”. How can an organization be in schism and still be an internal matter?
Even Monsignor Perl of Ecclesia Dei commision seems confused. Perl stated that while he did not feel attendance at SSPX chapels is recommended, they are neither forbidden to attend, nor subject to any penalty for doing so, if their attendance is on account of the reverence and devotion people find there. Also statements of Rome saying SSPX priests are suspended do not correlate to schism, since Church law does not apply to non-Catholics.
I do not think the case is as cut and dry as many would like to make it.
T
Timothysis
Guest
I have always thought it most curious that those who support the sspx and justify their actions according to their own interpretations of canon law never blink twice over the fact that the Masses offered by the sspx are illict, or illegal/not allowed by the Church. If a good Catholic knowingly participates in something that the Church, by Her own laws, does not allow, is that Catholic placing himself in a dangerous position? Would these same people who so willingly participate in illicit sspx Masses be so fair minded of someone who attended Mass with a priest who left the Church and was stripped of his priestly duties? His Masses would still be valid but highly illicit; would these same people say that it is ok? The number of times that this subject has come up I have never seen an sspx supporter address the fact that sspx Masses are illicit, not allowed by the Church, yet sspx priests still celebrate them. How can a good Catholic in good conscience support such actions???
- Status